Humans are, by nature, social creatures. All of us depend, at least in part, on our social connections for success, happiness, and fulfillment, let alone survival. As such, shame is a powerful motivator. It is no wonder that being disapproved of by one’s community is an extremely unpleasant feeling. The powerful effects of shame are precisely why it can, in certain circumstances, be used as an effective punishment to deter anti-social behavior that endangers us all. Now I’m not calling for any scarlet letters, nor do I hope to see anyone locked in stocks and pillories in front of the Porter County courthouse. But I am also not ready to rule out such a potent deterrent, especially when it comes to repeat offenders who have not responded to traditional methods of justice.

Let’s take drunk driving, for example. Now it’s true that the number of people killed each year due to drunk drivers has gone down significantly. However, approximately one-third of those arrested or convicted of drunk driving have been arrested for drunk driving before. Most alarmingly, it is those repeat offenders who are 40% more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than those without prior drunk driving convictions. Thus, while most people respond to traditional punishments and are deterred from dangerous behavior like drunk driving, a substantial minority do not, and these repeat offenders are more likely to endanger the community than a first-time offender. If certain individuals are not deterred from their anti-social behavior by suspended licenses or jail sentences, then why should the justice system be prevented from exploring more effective alternatives?

Public shame punishments may seem cruel, and certainly rather unusual, to some. But let’s put it into perspective. As a society, we are willing to deprive people we deem dangerous or disorderly of their privacy, their property, and even their freedom. But ordering someone to stand on a street corner and wear a sign admitting guilt is cruel and unusual? If so, then most of our criminal justice system is cruel and unusual. And let’s not forget that some of these repeat offenders have caused immense tragedy and pain to their communities. If shame is a powerful motivator, then perhaps we should examine how we can use it both effectively and fairly.

I don’t believe that public shame is an appropriate punishment in most cases. But to those who have not responded to more conventional methods of punishment, we should be at least willing to consider it as an option. If a person has willfully or recklessly disregarded the safety and well-being of his or her community time and time again, then that person has forfeited any privilege they may have against public embarrassment.

By Jon Kohlscheen

Twitter, the now infamous micro-blogging site that facilitated revolutions and is featured in our presidential debates, has come under heavy fire for a new policy change that would allow it to block tweets from being seen in countries where the content of the message might violate that country’s speech laws. Many are quick to denounce Twitter, but the move is the least restrictive option Twitter has if it wants to continue to expand its services around the world and protect itself from liability and legal conflict.

Twitter, which currently has around 100 million users, has set an ambitious goal of 1 billion users in the not-so-distant future in an effort to become an online advertising behemoth on par with Google. Realistically, this means that Twitter has to keep expanding internationally, reaching new users in new countries that have so far avoided the Twitter bug. The San Francisco-based social networking site, formed in 2006, has over 700 employees in the United States, with only a handful abroad in England and Japan. In order to facilitate their international expansion, they will likely begin creating larger offices around the world, staffed with programmers, advertising executives, lawyers, and the like.

The problem lies in the speech laws of other countries that Twitter would like to expand into. Personal jurisdiction law varies from country to country, especially in terms of the Internet. But as Twitter begins actively targeting new users in countries around the world, let alone establishing new bases of operation, it will expose Twitter to potential liability when its users run afoul of their own country’s speech laws. For example, were Twitter to aggressively expand its operation in France and Germany, Nazi sympathizer tweets that denied the Holocaust would violate those countries’ law.

Up until now, Twitter had the choice between removing the tweet globally or putting itself in legal hot water. This new policy change allows Twitter to remove the Tweet only in countries where it clashes with the law, leaving it available for the rest of the world to see. Twitter has not yet used this capability and if it does, it has promised transparency by disclosing when it removes tweets and for what reason. While this might not be the best case scenario for Internet free speech activists, it is a measured response to a real problem faced by Twitter that still preserves much of the free speech Twitter is known for.

No one has a right to absolute free speech on Twitter. At the end of the day, Twitter is a company that exists to provide a service that people want, pay good salaries to its employees, and make a profit for its investors. Twitter has done its best to preserve the free speech rights of its users while at the same time expand its business and protect itself from legal trouble. Let’s not be so quick to condemn Twitter. And if you do, keep it to 140 characters or less.

By Jon Kohlscheen

Commissioner David Stern of the National Basketball Association likes to claim that a new collective bargaining agreement featuring a 50-50 split of revenues between the owners and the players is essential for the long-term viability of the league. According to Stern, player salaries are ballooning and threaten to bring down the league. By reducing player salaries from 57% of Basketball-Related Income (BRI) to 50%, the players’ salaries will come more in line with where they need to be. And to most people observing the recent lockout, 50-50 just sounds like a pretty fair deal. What can be more fair than an even split?

But it isn’t fair. The players are justified in pursuing a lockout because they aren’t the problem, the owners are. Over the past 10 years, player salaries have gown at a near identical rate to overall league revenue, at approximately 24%. On the other hand, the average NBA team has become 79% more valuable to the owners over the same time period. So while the owner’s assets have been growing at a much faster rate than the overall league revenue, the players’ salaries have remained the same. If players’ salaries haven’t become a bigger slice of the overall pie, then is this players’ fault again?

Commissioner Stern is covering for owners who have simply can’t manage their own businesses. The worst part is that he is now demanding that the players, who have kept their end of the bargain, now bail out the owners who mismanaged the teams in the first place. The players have already agreed to reduce their share of revenue by 4.5%, which amounts to $2.2 billion over the 10-year life of the proposed collective bargaining agreement. But that isn’t enough for the owners. The owners won’t budge until the players reduce their own salaries by at least another 1.5%, or $702 million over 10 years. What have the owners offered? Nothing.

It is certainly understandable to criticize the NBA lockout and just ask for everybody to get along. The NBA lockout does hurt thousands of merchants and businesses. It also harms the fans. But it is simply unreasonable to expect the players to back down and hand over nearly $3 billion out of their pockets to a bunch of owners who couldn’t even manage their own teams when their value was rising. And all without a single concession by the owners. That’s not negotiation. That’s a shakedown.

By Jon Kohlscheen

On Wednesday, September 28^th, Amazon released the Kindle Fire, a tablet that many have called the most serious threat to Apple’s dominance of the tablet market ever. While some analysts are quick to compare on the technical specifications of the Kindle Fire and the iPad, others have begun to see the Kindle Fire for what it really is: the first salvo in Amazon’s war on Apple for consumer technology dominance. Apple has controlled this market for quite some time, dwarfing all of its competitors with staple products like the iPod, iPhone and iPad. However, Amazon’s aggressive strategy and innovative business model may one day lead it to topple the tech-giant Apple from its throne.

In this economy, most people have less and less money to spend on luxury items like tech gadgets because of both the increased price of other everyday goods and income reductions or layoffs. More money goes to gas, food, health care and rent and at the same time, hours are cut and wages are slashed. While iPad 2 sales have certainly been steady, there is a quickly increasing portion of the population that simply can’t afford to shell out anywhere from $499 to $829. Now don’t get me wrong, $199 is not pocket change. But the Kindle Fire costs less than half of what the least expensive iPad 2 costs and that simply cannot be ignored in times like these. Some Apple advocates counter that strong sales for the Kindle Fire won’t translate into Amazon thwarting Apple’s market dominance. However, that argument ignores the fact that Amazon’s business model is designed to turn Kindle Fire sales into overall success.

Apple’s business model is to make its money from device sales. Consumers pay more upfront to get access to all of the device’s features and Apple’s iTunes, App Store and eBook library. This model has certainly done well for Apple and no one can doubt the success of iTunes. However, Amazon’s business model, starkly different from the Apple approach, is the ideal strategy to wage a consumer technology insurrection against the mighty Apple.

Amazon delivers its devices at a low upfront cost because it is banking on making its profits from consumers using the devices to purchase products from Amazon. Despite Apple’s success, Amazon maintains a colossal library of eBooks for its Kindle line unparalleled by Apple’s attempts. It has access to the entire Android App Store and has an online music store that can easily rival iTunes. And let’s not forget that Amazon is one of the largest and most successful online sites to buy non-e-things—actual books, clothes, DVDs, you name it. Throw in the fact that all these Amazon services utilize their pioneering use of cloud computing and you have everything you need to get a consumer hooked. Make no mistake, Amazon is counting on it. By flooding the market with low-cost tablets, Amazon will convert a sizable share of the market to Amazon products and capitalize on already-existing Amazon enthusiasts.

Don’t think that I’m saying that hordes of consumers will be organizing iPad burnings tomorrow. But let’s not underestimate the threat that Amazon poses to Apple either. Apple has been able to swat away all of its other challengers with ease, staying light years ahead of the competition. Trust me, Amazon will be different. Gone are the days when Apple was the monolithic tech giant above all others. Amazon is about to show the world that even a god-king can bleed.

By Jon Kohlscheen

As we get closer to summer, the presidential campaign cycle is starting to ramp up and potential Republican candidates are beginning to test the waters and decide whether they have what it takes to challenge President Obama. And to be honest, the list of mainstream candidates is pretty boring. And then there’s Donald Trump. Yes, the real estate mogul and star of NBC’s reality TV show The Apprentice has indicated that he might want to run for president. Many people are skeptical, claiming that he isn’t really serious about running. But dismiss him at your own risk. He could very likely be in it to win it.

First, Trump has no shortage of self-confidence. He speaks as if he is running the country already and is never bashful about his success, intelligence, or business prowess. Trump has no qualms whatsoever about self-promotion, which is basically what a presidential campaign is. Granted, most candidates are more nuanced than he, to say the least. But many Americans are tired of political correctness and may appreciate his bluntness.

He’s also not a politician or a “Washington insider.” He’s a wealthy businessman whose can speak with more authority on economic issues than many other candidates could. In this stale and sagging economy, there might be a significant portion of Americans who might hear him out.

Just as important, Trump could actually run a serious campaign. He recently said that he would be willing to spend $600 million of his own fortune on a presidential campaign and he would enter the race with gigantic name recognition and celebrity. He’s also leading in the polls. A recent Gallup poll put Trump tied for first with Huckabee, and that’s not the first poll to put Mr. Trump out in front.

Then there is the “birther” issue. Many people are quick to dismiss Trump’s prospects because they believe that no serious candidate could go around claiming that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States. But keep this in mind: a recent New York Times poll revealed that 47% of Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the United States and 22% were unsure of where he was born.

Some say “The Donald” is only running as a publicity stunt, perhaps as a way of boosting the ratings for his reality TV show. But has he ever had trouble stirring up publicity in the past? It doesn’t seem to me like he needs to pretend to run for president to get attention because his larger-than-life personality gets him all could ever need.

Others say that Americans wouldn’t take a reality TV star seriously as a candidate for the presidency. I beg to differ. Americans love American Idol and Dancing With the Stars, they get their news from The Daily Show and Glenn Beck, and our politics seem more like soap operas than reality. I say the Donald would fit right in.

By Emily Pattison

By now, there has been enough rumbling about Donald Trump that pretty much everyone knows of his interest in running for President as the Republican candidate in 2012. He has emerged on various news sources including Fox and The Wall Street Journal proclaiming his intentions to impose a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports and to “take the oil from Iraq.” Add to that his personal campaign to reignite the birther issue and you have the makings for one very lucrative question: Is this guy for real?

In terms of running a real estate business, launching a successful reality television series, and creating for himself a net worth of over $2.5 billion, the man seems to have his ducks in a row. He’s also well versed in the marriage thing by now, too. Third time’s a charm, but I digress. Based on recent interviews yielding vague answers to questions about his political leanings in the past, Trump seems more intent on ruffling feathers than providing concrete answers. He has no real policy proposals and avoids addressing real issues. He’s simply courting the media by saying the most controversial things he can.

This type of political publicity is not new to Donald Trump’s repertoire. In the 2000 presidential elections, he contemplated running as a third-party candidate, seeking the endorsement of the Reform Party. He gave numerous interviews and even wrote a book, “The America We Deserve,” with David Shiflett, in which he advocated universal healthcare. Before voters began to take him seriously, Trump backed out of the campaign and went back to running his business.

One of his primary problems this time around will be gaining a constituency. He seems passionate about his ideas, but he could very well just be doing this for publicity. Trump was once quoted saying, “Show me someone without an ego, and I’ll show you a loser.” How will he ensure Republican support when he has made significant contributions to Democratic campaigns and when he has voiced support for universal healthcare in the past? (Granted, Trump is about 50/50 on campaign contributions to but Republicans might not be so willing to overlook his past healthcare decisions).

His poll numbers seem impressive but being first in a recent poll doesn’t mean very much. At this stage in the game, polling well simply correlates to name recognition, of which Donald Trump has plenty. The people in the lead, such as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, are the same men who ran last time. A lot of other candidates ranking lower in the polls simply aren’t as well known yet. The point is, high poll numbers at this point do not mean Trump is more liked or more qualified, it just means the other candidates aren’t as well known yet. In the coming months, these numbers might change as other candidates being campaigning and promoting themselves.

But for now, Donald Trump is the greatest self-promoter out there.

by Jon Kohlscheen

In February, Borders filed for bankruptcy and announced that it plans to close about 200 of its 642 stores nationwide. Are Americans reading less during the Great Recession? It’s not likely. Publishers report overall book sales declining only slightly in the past year. Then why the collapse of a bookselling giant like Borders? The answer is that Borders, like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video, could not see the writing on the wall. Similar to how Netflix and Redbox have made the movie rental store near obsolete, the trend towards e-books is clear and unambiguous. Last month, for the first time ever, e-book sales are higher than sales in hardback books. In the past year alone, e-book sales have risen 115.8%. The transition to an e-book world is no longer a question of if, but when. Such a transition should be welcomed, not resisted.

First and foremost, the size is reason enough to hasten the shift to the e-book era. For example, the Kindle can hold about 1500 non-illustrated books right now and with continued advances in computer memory that number will only keep rising. The ability to keep an entire library on a device that weighs less than a pound? Amazing. Think of what an e-book era could mean for law students. No more hauling around all 1,825 pages of Chemerinsky’s Constitutional Law. No more grabbing the wrong book either. Your entire law school library, supplements and all, could come with you wherever you go. The same goes for the recreational reader. Being able to access your favorite newspapers, magazines, and books , all in one device, is something we should embrace.

E-books are also more convenient than traditional books could ever be. No need to keep your highlighters and pens with you, your Nook will take care of that. Don’t worry about losing your place, your Kindle has got it taken care of. Your Torts professor calls on you out of the blue and wants the precise details of a case you read a month ago, now? iPad and its search function have got your back. Let’s not forget that you also have an entire bookstore, far more expansive than Borders ever was, at your fingertips. No more ordering books on Amazon, waiting for the seller to ship it to you, only to find out that the U.S. Postal Service lost it 2 weeks later when the package ripped open (Trust me, I speak from experience).

I understand that people have some trepidations about leaving behind something that has been the norm. But remember cassette tapes? And CD’s? After iTunes, would you ever want to go back to a world without it? The world is changing, and changing fast. It can be unnerving at times. But let’s not get too nostalgic and hold off on adopting the e-book. Future generations of law students will thank you.

by Emily Pattison

With Borders recently filing for bankruptcy and the impending e-book boom, people are beginning to give more credence to the notion of phasing out the use of traditional books.  What’s not to love about these handy e-book readers? They’re lightweight, you can download content in less than a minute, and hey, they even fixed the LCD display so your retinas won’t burn out from excessive reading. Plus, we’re saving trees, right?

But maybe it’s not that simple. Aside from the old-fashioned, romantic notion of possessing your very own library, traditional books insure against the transient nature of technology. Just because e-book readers are popular now doesn’t require everyone to run out and invest in one for each member of the family. Just like cassettes and CD players seemed like a novelty less than 30 years ago, there is a strong possibility technology will surpass itself and e-books will no longer reign over the book world.

Now guess what continues to withstand the changing world? That’s right, throughout wars, floods, famines, fires, and political shifts, books have tenaciously held their ground. Long before Johann Guttenburg’s printing press changed the world of literature, the Egyptians utilized papyrus to record their stories. At Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, an entire museum is dedicated to ONE book, The Book of Kells, created by Celtic monks circa 800 A.D. So why the amateur history lesson about a bunch of random pages and typeface? Because it so clearly emphasizes how important physical books are, and have been, to society. Which calls for an assessment of their significance among another demographic:  students.

As law students, we all employ different study and briefing techniques. Despite the differences, it’s a fair assumption that many students write, highlight, or mark in their casebooks. With an e-book reader, highlighting is an option, but no longer does the reader get the satisfaction of underlining key points, writing in the margins, and making the book their own. Part of the enjoyment of traditional books comes from pulling them off the shelf and looking back at your notes and seeing how much you learned. First, you feel relieved you’re no longer in that particular class. Then, you revel in the sense of accomplishment and pride it evokes. Not only did you make it through the class, but you look back at some of your notes and feel mildly impressed. E-books simply cannot generate the same emotions.

Saying that new technology always makes life better and easier is like saying Facebook makes you a better friend. Too often the population assumes that advancements in technology, while admittedly novel and enticing, should be accepted as if no other options exist. Just like how Facebook is convenient, it’s not the only option for keeping in contact with loved ones. Moving forward with technology certainly has its merits, but if traditional notions haven’t failed you yet, why turn your back on them?

By Emily Pattison

As law students, we are almost programmed to respond to each and every injustice through exclusively legal means. The bigger the problem, the bigger the lawsuit — right? So when you stumble onto 400 scorned Super Bowl fans with an axe to grind, the logical conclusion seems to be a class action lawsuit. But for these fans, a class action lawsuit might not be their best option. The NFL has offered several lucrative alternatives to make up for its serious lack of foresight regarding the stadium seating fiasco. Although the prospect of winning a class action suit may seem tempting, these potential litigants should seriously consider one of the NFL’s offers instead of moving forward with a lawsuit.

First of all, I understand trying to get some extra cash to compensate for the missed opportunity of having prime-time seats at the Super Bowl, but the old adage, “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” comes to mind. If I had a choice between 5 million dollars and my choice of tickets to any future Super Bowl game, I’m not sure I’d hedge my bets and look for something even better. That’s a pretty sweet deal.

Along those same lines, the NFL is trying to be reasonable. They’re not undercutting the price of the original ticket. They’re not offering to reimburse part of the ticket price. They’re not even offering face value. They’re offering THREE times the face value, ($2,400) plus all additional travel expenses. For a giant corporation, that’s a pretty good starting offer.

Let’s try to keep things in perspective here. Yes, sports hold a special place in a lot of people’s lives, sometimes even bordering on fanatical. That still doesn’t excuse people from failing to employ reason. It was poor planning to sell tickets to people willing to pay top dollar and then leave them out in the cold (literally), but it’s also just one day amidst a lifetime of other opportunities. So missing out on great Super Bowl seats AND potentially losing this lawsuit makes the NFL’s offer seem more than generous.

So, scorned fans: If experiencing the Super Bowl in all its glory is of utmost importance, then take the offer of tickets to any Super Bowl game of your choosing. Don’t care for the Packers or Steelers? Wait for your team to make it there and then cash in on the NFL’s offer. Their offer allows you to wait until after the conference championships, giving you the freedom to wait and see which teams will be playing. Here’s your chance to choose the ideal game. How many other times will a football fan have that kind of opportunity? It might take a few years to get the matchup you’re looking for, but if the experience is the most valuable part, waiting a few more years seems reasonable. Also, you always have the option of selling the ticket for a profit on the secondary market. Even the NFL suggested it.

Finally, if you win the lawsuit, odds are you won’t win THAT much more than what the NFL is offering. Courts are already overburdened as it is, so maybe you should rethink filing a class action lawsuit when there’s already a decent offer on the table.

In the words of the Steve Miller Band, “Go on, take the money and run.”

By Jon Kohlscheen

The Super Bowl is an American holiday, a sacred religious festival, a rite of passage, and an economic stimulus package, all wrapped into one 4-hour time slot. It doesn’t matter if the Super Bowl was held in Dallas, Texas, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, or the Artic Circle, American football fans would find a way to get there and be a part of the magic. So when 400 proud ticketholders found out that their seats were unavailable and that they travelled far and wide to watch the big game on a monitor outside the stadium, you can understand their frustration. On top of that, there were a group of Cowboys Stadium “Founders” who paid $100,000 for a license to pick the best seats in the house who ended up with obstructed views and craned necks. We’re all law students, you can see where this is going.

How could this happen? Aren’t they prepared to accommodate everyone who bought a ticket? Apparently not. Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys and host of the Super Bowl, made it very clear that he wanted to shatter the attendance records from the moment it was announced that the Super Bowl would be held in Dallas. He even built a new stadium that would house entire nations to do it.  But apparently it wasn’t enough for Jerry, who packed the stadium so full of temporary seating that portions were closed off by the fire marshal. The worst part: the lack of seating availability was known for quite some time before these ticketholders travelled to Dallas, and no one bothered to inform them.

The NFL has offered these fans two options to try and compensate them for the disaster. First, they can take $2,4000, which is three times the face value of a ticket, and a ticket to next year’s Super Bowl. If they don’t like that option, they can also take a nontransferable ticket to any future Super Bowl, plus accommodations and airfare. These options ignore the fact that many fans paid far more than three times face value for the chance to see the Big Game, let alone the hyper-inflated travel and accommodation rates. Plus, many fans were there to see the Packers and the Steelers throw down, not whoever winds up in the Super Bowl for the next decade. Remember Super Bowl XXXV? Ravens and Giants? Kerry Collins and Trent Dilfer? My point exactly.

That’s why many of these fans are joining together for a class-action lawsuit. More power to them. Jerry Jones knew that the hopes and expectations of these fans would probably be dashed. He knew that everyday people were spending a small fortune to witness America’s great sporting event, but would end up watching it on a monitor outside the stadium. And he chose to risk it for a shot at an attendance record. That’s just ridiculous.